They do not want permanent US bases or a permanent US presence. Iraqi democracy speaks and we need to listen for a change. M

Published on Thursday, June 5, 2008 by Reuters
Iraq Lawmakers Want US Forces Out As Part of Deal

WASHINGTON - A majority of the Iraqi parliament has written to Congress rejecting a long-term security deal with Washington if it is not linked to a requirement that U.S. forces leave, a U.S. lawmaker said on Wednesday.

Rep. William Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat and Iraq war opponent, released excerpts from a letter he was handed by Iraqi parliamentarians laying down conditions for the security pact that the Bush administration seeks with Iraq.

The proposed pact has become increasingly controversial in Iraq, where there have been protests against it. It has also drawn criticism from Democrats on the presidential election campaign trail in the United States, who say President George W. Bush is trying to dictate war policy after he leaves office.

“The majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq,” the letter to the leaders of Congress said.

The signatures represented just over half the membership of Iraq’s parliament, said Delahunt, a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee chairman.

Two Iraqi lawmakers whose parties were listed as signatories testified to Delahunt’s panel on Wednesday that U.S. troops should leave Iraq, and that talks on the long-term security pact should be postponed until after they are gone.

“What are the threats that require U.S. forces to be there?” asked Nadeem Al-Jaberi, a co-founder of the al-Fadhila Shi’ite political party, speaking through a translator.

“I would like to inform you, there are no threats on Iraq. We are capable of solving our own problems,” he declared. He favored a quick pullout of U.S. forces, which invaded the country in 2003 and currently number around 155,000.

A Sunni Iraqi lawmaker, Khalaf Al-Ulayyan, founder of the National Dialogue Council, said bilateral talks on a long-term security deal should be shelved until American troops leave — and until there is a new government in Washington.

“We prefer to delay until there is a new administration in the United States,” he said. The United States elects a new president in November; Democrat Barack Obama, who clinched his party’s nomination this week, is among senators sponsoring a bill requiring any long-term pact with Iraq be submitted to Congress for approval.

Iraq lawmakers want US forces out as part of deal | Reuters

__________________
National Debt =

Good news! Time to bring our troops home.

Good! So let's just get the f*ck out! And I don't want any deal that will make US taxpayers responsible for propping up Iraq (or any other country) financially, either. Let them take care of their own problems using their OWN resources.

__________________


Walter Mondale: "George Bush doesn't have the manhood to apologize." George Bush: "Well, on the manhood thing, I'll put mine up against his any time."

Sounds exactly like the same guys that lied their butts off to get us quagmired into Iraq. A permanent US presence in Iraq is still a part of the 1998 (neo con) Plan for a New American Century (PNAC).
Published on Thursday, June 5, 2008 by The Independent/UK
Revealed: Secret Plan to Keep Iraq Under US Control

Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors

by Patrick Cockburn

BAGHADAD - A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq’s position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq - a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 - 10 000 more than when the military “surge” began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. “It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty,” said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: “This is just a tactical subterfuge.” Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its “war on terror” in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called “strategic alliance” without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create “a permanent occupation”. He added: “The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans.”

Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.

The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.

Although Iraqi ministers have said they will reject any agreement limiting Iraqi sovereignty, political observers in Baghdad suspect they will sign in the end and simply want to establish their credentials as defenders of Iraqi independence by a show of defiance now. The one Iraqi with the authority to stop deal is the majority Shia spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. In 2003, he forced the US to agree to a referendum on the new Iraqi constitution and the election of a parliament. But he is said to believe that loss of US support would drastically weaken the Iraqi Shia, who won a majority in parliament in elections in 2005.

The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence.

The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through. The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord.

The signature of a security agreement, and a parallel deal providing a legal basis for keeping US troops in Iraq, is unlikely to be accepted by most Iraqis. But the Kurds, who make up a fifth of the population, will probably favour a continuing American presence, as will Sunni Arab political leaders who want US forces to dilute the power of the Shia. The Sunni Arab community, which has broadly supported a guerrilla war against US occupation, is likely to be split.

Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control - Middle East, World - The Independent

__________________
National Debt =

Well, we did blow up their country with bombs dropped from the sky and hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground shooting big guns.....we might be kinda obligated to help rebuild it.

One part of war is blowing the s h i t out of a country. The other parts are taking care of the troops and rebuilding the country when we're done.

That's why war costs so much and should never be waged unless we are threatened or attacked. Bush went to war on a whim, because he wanted to finish the job his daddy started. And to enrich the military industrial complex friends of the family. Terrible reasons to go to war. Impeachable even.

I say LISTEN to them... Get out now!

__________________
Yea can't keep the words of your great leader.

Prophet Muhammad - “Do you love your creator? Love your fellow-beings first.”

Good for them!

It'll be interesting to see whether we're all talk when it comes to democracy or if we value our continuing desire to be permanently meddlesome over the desires of the people.

Somebody remind me again what, exactly, we've gained for what we've spent?

__________________
Unfortunately, the Founders did not address the possibility of this nation becoming populated with obnoxious twits.

Love how our Congress seems remarkably uninterested in that.

__________________
Unfortunately, the Founders did not address the possibility of this nation becoming populated with obnoxious twits.

Bush is the Vanna White in the mideast showing everyone what's behind door number one, DEMOCRACY. Then Bush and Cheney are true believers in democracy is it supports what they want. Then when the Iraqis really speak up wanting to be more than a US puppet government, they ignore them and continue building permanent bases.

__________________
National Debt =

The war profiteers all have brand new multimillion dollar yachts, that they can use to traverse the oceans without worrying about how we are faring back here in the "homeland"...

That's good, isn't it? That's worth the lives of over 4100 americans and the limbs of tens of thousands more... right?

No... I don't think so either...

__________________
I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.
~~Socrates

My UPDATED Pep Talk For Lefties and Lurkers